Lack of effect of lowering LDL cholesterol on cancer: meta-analysis of individual data from 175,000 people in 27 randomised trials of statin therapy

<p>Background: Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials.</p> <p>Methods and Findings: Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93–1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93–1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82–1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76–1.10]).</p> <p>Conclusions: In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).</p&gt

Modelling and Verification of Timed Robotic Controllers

Designing robotic systems can be very challenging, yet controllers are often specified using informal notations with development driven primarily by simulations and physical experiments, without relation to abstract models of requirements. The ability to perform formal analysis and replicate results across different robotic platforms is hindered by the lack of well-defined formal notations. In this paper we present a timed state-machine based formal notation for robotics that is informed by current practice. We motivate our work with an example from swarm robotics and define a compositional CSP-based discrete timed semantics suitable for refinement. Our results support verification and, importantly, enable rigorous connection with sound simulations and deployments.</p

In-time explainability in multi-agent systems ::challenges, opportunities, and roadmap

In the race for automation, distributed systems are required to perform increasingly complex reasoning to deal with dynamic tasks, often not controlled by humans. On the one hand, systems dealing with strict-timing constraints in safety-critical applications mainly focused on predictability, leaving little room for complex planning and decision-making processes. Indeed, real-time techniques are very efficient in predetermined, constrained, and controlled scenarios. Nevertheless, they lack the necessary flexibility to operate in evolving settings, where the software needs to adapt to the changes of the environment. On the other hand, Intelligent Systems (IS) increasingly adopted Machine Learning (ML) techniques (e.g., subsymbolic predictors such as Neural Networks). The seminal application of those IS started in zero-risk domains producing revolutionary results. However, the ever-increasing exploitation of ML-based approaches generated opaque systems, which are nowadays no longer socially acceptable—calling for eXplainable AI (XAI). Such a problem is exacerbated when IS tend to approach safety-critical scenarios. This paper highlights the need for on-time explainability. In particular, it proposes to embrace the Real-Time Beliefs Desires Intentions (RT-BDI) framework as an enabler of eXplainable Multi-Agent Systems (XMAS) in time-critical XAI

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit